Labels

[sebastienne]

In my high school yearbook, I was given the epithet Emma "and my sexuality today is.." [surname]. It's not far wrong; after years of parroting "everyone is bisexual" because Velvet Goldmine and sexual opportunism told me to, it occurred that there are beautiful, vital, and wildly erotic people who do not consider themselves "male" or "female", and identifying as bisexual would seem to exclude them - perhaps omnisexual was a more accurate description? Except that this seemed to imply that I wanted to have sex with everyone at once. Pansexual would have worked, if it wasn't for the fact that I had a good friend called Pandora and that just seemed unecessarily confusing. But hang on - maybe my attraction isn't so equal-opportunities after all - all the men I'm attracted to are fictional and/or gender variant! Perhaps I'm femmesexual, attracted to all kinds of women but only to feminine men?

That's just a taster, a week's worth of navel-gazing lust-gauging. This went on for years.

Recently it's reared its head again, though. I've been describing myself as a Lesbian (capitalised, yesplz), using words like "dyke" and "sapphic" to talk about myself, even though it's not strictly true. And all of a sudden it's making me a little bit sick. Because it puts me, and my sexual partners, into false and upsetting roles. It assumes that I, and everyone I sleep with, identifies as 100% & unequivocally fully female. When I lust after a person, calling myself a Lesbian, I force her to be a woman. This hot person walking past my window - she can't be genderqueer, he can't be a transman, zie can't be bigendered. Equally, when I exist, calling myself a Lesbian, I force myself to be a woman. And I don't want that, actually. I'm lucky enough to exist in a part of the world where my behaving as I see fit with no regard for gender congruency is more-or-less acceptable. In another place or time I would be a lot more genderqueer. Except I probably wouldn't because I don't like torture/death.

The very idea of "homosexual/heterosexual" seems to be to reinforce the gender binary, shove people into roles with which they are not entirely comfortable. While paradigms of homosexual relationships may not be as pervasive and damaging as the masculine > feminine heteronormative structure that destroys many "straight" relationships, they exist, Diva and Attitude force people into playing roles just as much as Cosmo magazine or FHM.

I think I've gorged myself on gender theory since I've arrived in the pridehouse, and made myself sick. This is upsetting me far more than it needs to.

Comments

[dyddgu.livejournal.com]

aww, pet *hugs*
I think Mr. Shakespeare is right, as he is on most matters - "Tis to consider too curiously to consider so" (or someodd). I often think the world would be happier if we allowed ourselves/others allowed us to just "be".

[queerpup.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I find nothing kicks me out of a genderqueering "aagh" quicker than a wank.

Sometimes it takes that + a cup of tea.

Take either remedy at your leisure :o)

[rex-dart.livejournal.com]

This hot person walking past my window - she can't be genderqueer, he can't be a transman, zie can't be bigendered.

Identifying yourself one way and being attracted to someone is in no way whatsoever forcing them to do or be or think or feel anything, and to assume that it does is just ridiculous. All that it means is that that person has the physical appearance of a woman and that's attractive to people who are physically attracted to women, and if they don't like that, tough shit - they can damn well change it if they find it offensive that people who like women like them.

Equally, when I exist, calling myself a Lesbian, I force myself to be a woman. And I don't want that, actually. I'm lucky enough to exist in a part of the world where my behaving as I see fit with no regard for gender congruency is more-or-less acceptable.

You're making the mistake of conflating gender with gender roles. Sexuality is a constant, no matter what other classicists might try to tell you about that; it's biological. It has nothing to do with social gender constructs, even if, for example, we might find our tastes influenced or encapsulated by such. I like women who look traditionally femenine; it's just what I find attractive. I think that women are more aesthetically pleasing and that curves and grace and delicate features and all those qualities more common in women are attractive.

This is not true for everyone. Go to the pride parade and check out the number of lesbians who look like fat men who just escaped from the trailer park circa 1984. And then look at me with my lace bustiers and pumps. We're all lesbians, and nobody's forcing anyone into any sort of behaviour. Being a woman is not acting like what society tells women to act like. It is being a woman. And going back to the other point, there are people who don't want to be who are, on some level, women. Whether because they were born that way or just because they appear that way. On that physical level, they are women, even if on other levels they aren't or don't want to be. It sucks, maybe, and it's distressing, possibly, but that's tough shit. People are born as women or men and are naturally physically inclined one way or another, and they can't bitch about people who like women or men finding them attractive on a physical level because of that. And other people don't have to worry about it at all.

There is no "idea" of sexuality. There is just sexuality. There are ideas about sexuality that shape the way people view it, but that doesn't change the fact that people are born gay or bi or straight or asexual. This is just like the fact that gender isn't an idea. It's a biological fact.

Some people are born with the wrong gender on the outside to match what's in their head. I'm sure that there are some people who are born with no gender at all inside and no matter what they are physically it's not going to mesh. But I'm quite sure that it's very rare.

[rex-dart.livejournal.com]

Frankly - and as a left-wing nut - I'm sick of how far people in the queer community take this sexuality issue. There doesn't need to be a lable for every little thing. I am not forcing myself to be anything but what I want to be by acknowledging that I am gay and was born gay and like women, and nobody else is either, not any more than acknowledging that you're blond forces you to be a dumb blond.

Giving yourself a label for convenience is just that - a convenience. We do it all the time. Labels are useful and necessary and the title of a book does not have to express everything that's inside. You don't have to be pissed off when somebody calls you a brunet instead of a dark mahogany. It's still true and it's less of a pain in the ass. Yes, even if you have little red highlights. It's still, by and large, bloody accurate.

Do I need a label that indicates that I'm gay but would still fuck Jon Stewart into the next decade? Do I need a label that indicates that I'm gay and I'd date a MTF if she were post-op and I found her attractive? Do I need a label that indicates that I don't want to date women with mullets? Do I need a label indicating that my hair is a very dark brown bordering on black but it does have a lot of red naturally in it and also quite a few blond highlights and also that it tends to naturally lighten to a medium-dark brown during the summer? Christ, no, it's overkill and it's petty and it's taking things waaaay too seriously.

If you can follow me here. The whole queer community just needs to take a step back and fucking relax here. People always bitch about how labels box people in and are oppressive and whatthefuck, but it's those people who take labels seriously enough to do that. If people don't care about pinpoint accuracy, those are the ones who treat them like they're supposed to be treated. In a utilitarian fashion.

[sebastienne.livejournal.com]

I could be awful and say "well what about intersex people?".. but certainly, perhaps because I'm less gay than I make out, there are a lot of things more important to me in a potential sexual partner than whether they have breasts, cock, curves. Things like confidence & sense of humour & passion.

I have grown beyond the "dark mahogany" stage of self-identifying, I like to think, having spent the last 2 or 3 years identifying as blanket "queer". I'm not angsting about whether or not "Lesbian" is the "right" label for me; I'm angsting about whether the whole concept of homo/hetero enforces a gender binary distinction that is damaging, about whether I'm reinforcing damaging concepts by calling myself "gay" instead of "queer".

Of course, you're right, if it is all reducible to biological/sexual characteristics then I'm worrying over nothing. But I'm not entirely convinced that it is - partially because those things are not primary causes of attraction for me, partially because of people who are physically as well as mentally non-binarily-gendered, and partially because of reading too much fucking political theory.

[lizziwig.livejournal.com]

I agree with the above. It's stupid to think you need to have some perfect special label to describe what, for me at least, has always been a pattern of behaviour, rather than some fundamental part of my being. I prefer having sex with women to men, and am sometimes vaguely repulsed by the male body, but I would probably not refer to myself as a lesbian. Ultimately it's between me and who I'm having sex with on one individual occasion. Maybe it ties into my distaste for people insisting on binary gender, but I think that there's a much wider gap between gender identity and sexual orientation than some people think. There is for me, at least.

'Queer' covers a multiple of things. One label I can never imagine embracing is 'dyke';u I've just had it yelled at me by perfect strangers,sually prefaced with 'fucking', one too many times.

On a related linguistic note, I'd be interested to hear what you make of the expression 'Gay and Lesbian'. It crops up a lot, and it usually ends up making me feel vaguely offended.

[sebastienne.livejournal.com]

What upset me when working for Stonewall was the way in which this "Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual" organisation seemed completely oblivious to / dismissive of issues of bi/queer visibility & any trans stuff. They fought for "gay and lesbian" equality, and that was it; obviously, when gays & straights are equal, the bis & queers (being as they are half-gay half-straight) would be equal by default. They got upset about a fictional gay character having a drug habit, because that's a negative representation, but they didn't give a shit about a newspaper article proclaiming "we did a "scientific study" and, y'know what, bisexuality doesn't exist". And even though pretty much all "homophobic" bullying in schools is in fact transphobic, picking up on gender-variant behaviour, eg, "nancy-boy", "hairy-legged dyke", they resolutely refuse to deal with any trans issues, claiming it's not on their mandate.

Half-gay half-straight. Way to validate my identity!

[rex-dart.livejournal.com]

there are a lot of things more important to me in a potential sexual partner than whether they have breasts, cock, curves. Things like confidence & sense of humour & passion.

The one thing I'm going to pick up on here is this. This is something I hear from a lot of people and I think it's largely avoiding or sugar-coating the issue. What is the difference between a friend and a lover if not physical attraction? Whether or not sex is actually involved, which it doesn't have to be, there's really nothing besides attraction to differentiate between a lover and a very close friend.

I'm sure most gay people - and straight people - feel the way I do, which is that I could meet the exact same person I'd want to spend the rest of my life with if they were a woman, but as a man I'd just want to be friends. There's nothing wrong with it; it's just the way it is, and it makes sense. We're not all bisexual or anything broader and most of us don't want to be.

Some people aren't boxed in by gender because they find whatever attractive, and that's fine. But it's silly to avoid calling yourself something you feel you probably are just because you want to put more emphasis on personality than appearance.

So, yes, emotional and mental compatibility is important. Personality is the most important thing. But there still is that physical factor, and that's where gender has to come into it. (Not that it doesn't on the emotional and mental levels as well, but to a lesser and more fluid degree.)

[sebastienne.livejournal.com]

What is the difference between a friend and a lover if not physical attraction?

My physical attraction is a pretty nebulous, changeable thing, I guess. Or I just find a LOT of people sexually attractive. Because there are many, many people for whom I would express my affection sexually, if the opportunity arose. The big divide, for me, is not between friend & lover, but between casual sex/play & relationship sex. Or I'm just a big slut.

/Generally speaking/ I can only see myself forming relationships with women, simply because /generally speaking/ women tend to be more on my wavelength. That's not a physical thing at all. And I'm not ruling out the possibility that the right person might come along, and not be fully female identified or "female" bodied.

Maybe I was exposed to too much "it's what's inside that matters" rhetoric at a young age, but I really do feel like I'd have sex with a person I cared for, /whatever/ their physicality, as long as they weren't actually filthy or infectious or something. Sure, I like boobies - a lot - and I'm often a little phallophobic, but those are secondary considerations.

[otterylexa.livejournal.com]

I can't say I really understand your angst, but have some *hugs* anyway.

[stronglight.livejournal.com]

Labels can be best-fit rather than perfect fit. The only label that *really* covers all the facets of you is "Emma" - and that only works in people who already know you.

Labels are like stereotypes - they allows people to process information about you more easily. They never can be totally accurate, but they are a good stop-gap while people get to know you properly.

[coconutswirl.livejournal.com]

See, sexuality to me is just a fluid concept (no pun intended!). I refuse to label myself in any way going bar the obvious "queer" tag because that is the best word for whoever I am. I don't really do labels and I have never fitted into any boxes - so I don't try to define what it is I am. I just try to go with the flow. Life's all about flux, anyway.

[sebastienne.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on this, really; a large part of the angst in this post comes from me being irritated at myself using labels that I know to be inaccurate, when I should just have stuck with "queer".

[sugar-and-space.livejournal.com]

I like sex.

[vass]

*makes a cup of tea for you*

Because it puts me, and my sexual partners, into false and upsetting roles. It assumes that I, and everyone I sleep with, identifies as 100% & unequivocally fully female.

I'm there with you.

This world sucks, as do its categories. This isn't your fault, you're just trying to get by and not hurt people.

When a form requires me to tick male or female as my sex (their term), sometimes I try to leave it blank or to ask the organisation why they need to know that. I do that even though female fits reasonably closely for me, because for some people which one they put down is a really huge deal, and it's unfair. But sometimes I just tick female and go along. I know that in a small way, I'm reinforcing the male/female gender binary, which I hate too even though it hasn't harmed me as much as it has others. But my resources are finite too, and I can't fight every battle. Just some.

Is Lesbian like that for you as an identity? If it makes you feel hot and tight and painful when you use it, then yeah, probably time for another label. But if it's baggy and stretched and not-right but not awful, then it might do while the other identities are in the wash, or until you can find something better.

[billyphatu.livejournal.com]

Nowadays, when somebody asks 'what' my sexuality is, I just tell them that yes, I am sexual.

[mrkgnao.livejournal.com]

*tea & sympathy*

I genuinely don't have anything useful to say on this subject having a) given up thinking about it and b) essentially lived the life of a straight person for the past 2 years.

But I don't understand why you need terminology? Surely the only truth that matters is that you fancy the individual person walking past your window...?

[sebastienne.livejournal.com]

Exactly. A large part of this post is just me chastising myself for using these labels to describe myself to other people, for /their/ ease of understanding me.

[mi-guida.livejournal.com]

I agree that labels shouldn't matter (and don't, to me, they caused a lot of arguments it France between me and French people who were obsessed with labels for everything, not just sexuality), and though you're free to chastise yourself, don't be too hard on your self? Sorry, I'm not terribly coherent right now, or I'd be saying this better.

I feel I haven't seen you in ManyAges and FarTooLong. Could this mayhap be remedied in not too distant future?

*hugs*

[sebastienne.livejournal.com]

well you have been hiding in Forn like a big silly. you are in .ox next term y/y? come & see shiny new house that is making me so happy!

[mi-guida.livejournal.com]

Well, true. I also was chronically bad at keeping in touch other than LJ this last year...

Anyway, yes, back in Ox of joy and love (well, I know it isn't always, but I'm looking forward to it) 30th September, with a shiny room in college, though I will definitely come see the house (um, though first you must tell me where it is!). Equally, you must come and drink tea and other beverages and see the room of KitschBohemianTat, as it may have to be christened!

[pozorvlak.livejournal.com]

Doesn't Lesbian-with-a-capital mean you're a native of Lesbos? :-)

[sebastienne.livejournal.com]

kinda.. it started off as a euphemism drawn from that, so Victorians, Bloomsbury set, etc would capitalise it, and I'm drawn to the silliness of that.

[andustar.livejournal.com]

With people being the unique snowflakes that they are, labels are an approximation at best, and all right-thinking people will take them as such by default. And I don't like the implication that you have to choose a label that not only suits you reasonably well but also couldn't possibly be taken wrongly/hurtfully by any person in any light. That's unfair, and it's far too much 'responsibility' and accompanying angst without any really helpful result.